Spin Off from the Defensive Scenarios Forum

This is a discussion on Spin Off from the Defensive Scenarios Forum within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hey all, I'm going to take an obviously unpopular view around here, but it's my view.
Instead of hijacking someone else's thread any further I ...

Spin Off from the Defensive Scenarios Forum

Hey all, I'm going to take an obviously unpopular view around here, but it's my view.

Instead of hijacking someone else's thread any further I figured I'd start my own. This pertains to a belief I've developed over the years of seeing morons and idiots carrying guns. While I have taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and will do so willingly, I have some reservations when it comes to guns.

I will support and defend your right to own a gun, and believe that even fully automatic weapons should be legal to purchase without a Tax Stamp or even a 4473. The part I have issue with is the carrying of guns in public without training.

Sorry folks, but your CCW Class doesn't cut it. Not all training is "high dollar" or even worth the money you pay for it, but I think too many people are carrying guns without knowing when they can and can't shoot. I am finding that there is a lot lacking in the state mandated minimums. I'm also seeing what I perceive to be an "excuse" to use that firearm. I think a lot of people have forgotten that the gun is, "A Tool of Last Resort."

I want to know, before you carry your gun in public, that you at least know when you can and can't shoot and that you will not endanger me, my loved ones or the general public. I'm not saying you can't have a gun, just that you need to prove to some standard, greater than we have now, your abilities with that firearm that you want to carry in public and possibly endanger me and others. Make no mistake about it, there will be a political "backlash" on firearms in the future if too many otherwise "legal" people make bad decisions or choices, and we will all pay for it.

I realize there are those of you that will thump your chest and say the Second Amendment is the only license you need. I'm OK with that, as long as you don't carry that gun in public for self protection. Shooting that gun at the Range, hunting or using it in the home is fine as far as I'm concerned, but I don't make the rules.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm sick of dealing with idiots and chest thumpers. Carrying a gun is a tremendous responsibility and lately I'm seeing, what I perceive to be, a bunch of people that have not fully considered that responsibility.

I can see where you are coming from, but it is a very fine line. The biggest problem would be regulation, because then the government would probably get involved, and then it would have to be determined what level a person must be trained to, ect...

On the other hand self-defense is really the ultimate right that we have as human beings, and the firearm is the great equalizer in self defense. It is a lot easier for a 90 pound 50 year old woman to shoot a 300 pound 20 something male than it is for her to become proficient at ju-jitsu, and effectively use it.

I will agree that a firearm is a last resort, even in my line of work, it is used when all other options to de-escalate a situation have failed. A lot of people don't seem to understand when to shoot or not to, but honestly, I don't think that is a decision anyone can really make until you are in a situation that requires you to make that choice, or possibly die. There really is no substitute for the chaos that will occur while making that choice, and your body goes through some pretty significant changes physiologically in the split second that also makes have to be taken into account.

Don't get me wrong, I've done a lot of training that puts us in shoot/no shoot situations, using blanks or simunitions and involving human beings at the other end, but it doesn't really compare IMO to actually having to make that decision.

Thats just my 0.02 on the topic, coming from a slightly different viewpoint.

I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but I've got to say you come off as annoying, conscending and preachy in almost every thread I've seen you post in. Who annointed you as the hall monitor of this forum?

Further, there are POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT that don't even understand the laws they are supposed to enforce. So what do you expect of the average Joe who just wants to protect himself or family? The fact that many people come here on a regular basis serves to educate and inform IMO. To satisfy your personal requirements what exactly would you like them to do? Really, please explain.

Reading through some of these threads has really made me think, ergo made me a more informed responsible gun owner which I strive to be at all times. In some of these threads people may do or say the wrong thing, and you always seem to be there criticizing them. While I may not have handled said situation in the same way I always appreciate it when somebody takes the time to share an experience both positive and negative.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of civilians carrying, yet there are not daily articles showing these people using their guns when they shouldn't. Some, sure, but overall it isn't a big thing. A lot of this can be chocked up to opportunity- the vast majority of them will never be in a situation where they need to draw and fire.

Minnesota requires 8 hours of training including deadly force. I've read and studied much more than that, but I wouldn't say I am an expert. It won't clear leather unless I don't have a choice, mostly because of the impact of a potential bad shoot on me and my family. It costs about $10k to defend yourself (criminal and civil) for even a righteous shoot, and we don't have departments and cities that pick up the costs. I won't do that if I have another choice.

"Who is to say that I am not an instrument of karma? Indeed, who is to say that I am not the very hand of God himself, dispatched by the Almighty to smite the Philistines and hypocrites, to lay low the dishonest and corrupt, and to bust the jawbone of some jackass that sodesperately deserves it?"

I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but I've got to say you come off as annoying, conscending and preachy in almost every thread I've seen you post in. Who annointed you as the hall monitor of this forum?

Further, there are POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT that don't even understand the laws they are supposed to enforce. So what do you expect of the average Joe who just wants to protect himself or family? The fact that many people come here on a regular basis serves to educate and inform IMO. To satisfy your personal requirements what exactly would you like them to do? Really, please explain.

Reading through some of these threads has really made me think, ergo made me a more informed responsible gun owner which I strive to be at all times. In some of these threads people may do or say the wrong thing, and you always seem to be there criticizing them. While I may not have handled said situation in the same way I always appreciate it when somebody takes the time to share an experience both positive and negative.

Since people aren't up to your level of training, how about we do away with concealed AND open carry in all public places til they complete the additional training. You'll feel safer then won't you? I know the BG's will feel safer.

What we see here, are opinions, we all have them, or our fingers would not have tapped the keys, or our eyes read the posts.

So why criticize some one for having one?

An other poster, and many before him, have stated that of the thousands of us who legally carry, the criminal misuse of these myriad carried hand guns is minute, practically none existent, would it benefit all who for instance post here, to be trained up on the laws, and skills required to protect our selves and family whilst carrying our pistols in public?

It certainly would, but there does not seem to be any method of doing so without a "Governing body!" having jurisdiction over us, to set parameters, and "Fees!" no thank you.

BikerRN started this thread, with an opinion, we counter with ours? that is what its all about. When the opinion of most seems to be "a gun is an object of last resort" that I for one to not agree too, to rant on their opinion is not my way, I will state my opinion, which in this specific case, "last resort" is rather "correct response" pick the tool from your tool box, ie, a step to one side, a straight left to the nose, or three shots center chest!

In my "Opinion" I have the skills to do all three, and know enough law to select which one fits. You do not agree? OK, state your opinion.

I understand your point of view, but disagree with it because of 2A.
Just as gun laws don't work, neither would required training...idiots are everywhere.
Now I know that training and practice are important, but telling 'granny' that she cannot defend herself in a WW parking lot because she didn't finish the 5-day course at the local range doesn't cut it with me.
We do have laws that cover poor judgement with a firearm...make a big mistake and you 'pay the piper'.

Training is a good thing to have, but much of it the average person can barely afford, especially with the way things are now. Costs to vary from state to state though. Driving an automobile is far more regulated than carrying a firearm, and yet there seems to be more deaths involving the use of a car than guns. If you can afford and fit more training into your schedule I highly recommend you do so. I would do almost anything (within reason) to go to the Front Site training facility I think its in Nevada and get some of the best firearms and marksmanship training around.

However telling a single Mom of 2-4 kids living in the projects with no way to get around other than public transportation or walking that she can't defend herself and her kids, because she couldn't afford to pay for training is uncalled for IMO. It seems to me, the people who can't afford training and living in drug infested neighborhoods are the ones who ought to be carrying guns.

Maybe if there was some sort of state or county funded firearms training program that low income folks could go to and learn how to use firearms for defensive purposes, life would be a little better for all of us.

I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but I've got to say you come off as annoying, conscending and preachy in almost every thread I've seen you post in. Who annointed you as the hall monitor of this forum?

Further, there are POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT that don't even understand the laws they are supposed to enforce. So what do you expect of the average Joe who just wants to protect himself or family? The fact that many people come here on a regular basis serves to educate and inform IMO. To satisfy your personal requirements what exactly would you like them to do? Really, please explain.

Reading through some of these threads has really made me think, ergo made me a more informed responsible gun owner which I strive to be at all times. In some of these threads people may do or say the wrong thing, and you always seem to be there criticizing them. While I may not have handled said situation in the same way I always appreciate it when somebody takes the time to share an experience both positive and negative.

+1

While I am not sure, I think you will find more "well trained" officers involved in more wrongful deaths/shoots than CCW holders.

I look at the gun as a tool of second to last resort, the bullet is the tool of last resort.

In a self defense situations you may need the service of 1 of 3 professionals, lawyer, doctor, or undertaker, for my money I will take the lawyer.

Training is great, education is fine, you can not possibly train for the millions of possible scenarios that life hands you. Bottom line is you have to use your head.

Couple months ago a police chief, and one of his officers were convicted for rape. The chief was brushing the victim's hair and "hushing" her while his officer was performing the act. Wonder if that was part of the LEO training guide, I don't think so, just a bad decision. You have to use your brain.

I won't be putting any one in danger, including you BikerRN, heck if you needed a hand, I would be there for you or any LEO for that matter. Seems to me the only one in danger is the person that presents themselves as a thug, acts like a thug, probably is a thug, and just got their plans to rob, rape, or endanger some poor unsuspecting persons day ruined.

Sorry but, the actual stats just do not support your beliefs.
In Pennsylvania (Shall Issue) a person can walk into a gun store and legally purchase a firearm....then they can go get a PA License To Carry and then proceed to carry that firearm without any written or oral testing and without any classes or range qualification and without ever having fired that gun.
Our rate of Negligent Discharge or accidental shooting stats are lower (or the same as) other states and we have one of the highest percentages of folks with carry licenses as compared to total PA State population.
I think now it is above 5%.

In fact most of the totally "Stupid Stuff" with firearms takes place elsewhere in the U.S....so...what if I said that I thought that folks in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, & Arkansas need much tougher and stricter gun laws than people up North.

What the OP is opining amounts to an elitist attitude. "You are not as good as I am. Therefore you don't have the same rights as I do." That is his opinion and he is entitled to it.

I agree as far as saying everyone who carries a weapon has a moral obligation to themselves and those around them to train in the safe use and handling of that weapon.

What constitutes the proper level of training?

Who decides what the proper level of training is?

Does everyone need to be a black ops BDU wearing killing machine?

No, everyone needs to be able to handle their weapon of choice safely and with at least a minimum of precision.

Knowing when to use any tool of defense should be common sense, and therein lies the real problem.

I started to type what was quickly becoming a full scale rant/tirade on the stupidity rampant in today's society. That is for another thread.

I will end by saying this. Self defense is every person's right as a human being. Our forefathers had the sense to try to keep our government from trampling that right. That right does not stop at the door of my home. It is MY right and YOUR right. Lets not help the antis by fighting amongst our selves.

I kind of cringe when I read posts by people that are ready to draw at the drop of a hat, example.....someone entered their "comfort zone", someone is giving them the evil eye, a drunk bum is hounding them for money, etc. etc.
A handgun, like a car, can be a very dangerous thing if not used properly or responsibly. There will always be licensed idiots using both devices. I don't like it but it's the price we pay for living in a free society. The alternative, having some Government chucklehead decide if I'm ok to carry a firearm is an even worse prospect.

In short: The upstanding citizen isn't the one to be feared, not even on the raggedy edge of defending against a crime using lethal force, even if using force at a time when you might not do so yourself.

The long version ...

Originally Posted by BikerRN

I think a lot of people have forgotten that the gun is, "A Tool of Last Resort."

My state does not define use of force as a last resort, as such. It acknowledges the right of citizens to determine the need for and to use the degree of force required to stop the violence, up to and including lethal force if required.

You're suggesting you'd be most happy, if I'm reading you correctly, with a Duty To Retreat requirement for everyone. That is, essentially, what "last resort" means, in practice, that you'd have an absolute responsibility to withdraw, run away, eject or otherwise resist use of lethal force until the final moment when it couldn't be ... Well, at that point, many innocents would simply be overcome and killed by their attackers, if that were the standard everywhere. Thankfully, that lunacy isn't required, in most places.

IMO, upstanding citizens are generally going to know when crime allows few options, when actual defensive steps are needed. And we can generally agree when it's gotten so bad that there are few options available. We might even agree where that "tipping point" is as to what justifies absolute resistance to a lethal degree (aka, the use of lethal force).

" ... a drunk bum is hounding them for money ..."

The recent thread in question was about a gang of four, one of whom "hounded" constantly to the point of heading into the man's car after him and his money. The upstanding citizen had retreated to the car, and the thug followed him there. That's robbery, on the verge of becoming violent at the point the thug attempts to get through the last barrier between him and the upstanding citizen. The statutes in most states justify the use of force to defend against a robbery in progress, at least those that aren't barbaric in their views of crime. Whether that justified the display of the willingness to employ lethal force if the crime continued down the path the thug was heading ...

Keep in mind that the firing of one's defensive tool and presenting it as a clear/final warning that one's prepared to fire it are not the same thing (in many states). Oregon, for example, has a "menacing" (illegal intimidation) statute, but nothing against "brandishing" as such. It relies on the "reasonable man" standard for one to decide when a violent felony has no other options and fear of loss of life or crippling injury has arrived. It isn't an absolute definition. Diff'rent states, diff'rent standards. Heck, in NJ or IL, that same action would be an imprisonable offense, silly as it seems.

Take all the issue you must, with folks not being trained/knowledgeable to the degree you would require. That's fine, to a point. But, without debating the specifics of a given situation from the eyes of the beholder as to what was known/seen/felt at the time, it's hard to know for certain whether some absolute line has been crossed. It's fine to say you disagree with the way many see a situation. Debate it here, to help those less fortunate. Consider it a duty and responsibility, since it would be improving the mix.

I want to know, before you carry your gun in public, that you at least know when you can and can't shoot and that you will not endanger me, my loved ones or the general public.

(Heck, the simpering attorneys wrestling over your legal fate don't even know the answer to that one. How do they know? How, indeed.)

I'm sure everyone has that desire, basically. I would love to know that those around me are "safe" and "sane," too. Who wouldn't? But, that's why the criminal code exists. That's our code of conduct, written down. In a very real sense, it's only when actual action endangers others that we've got action that rises to the level of crime, and it's at that point when you know someone's a criminal, a danger, a threat. Until that point, you're just guessing, out of fear their standards and knowledge aren't up to yours, or aren't up to some "higher" standard.

What you're suggesting is that, beyond any statutory coverage of a given action as a "crime," you want required/forced training and some sort of "proof" that a person is "innocent before proven guilty," in a sense. That is, you want a person fully trained to a standard you'd be happy with, as opposed to being assumed to have the responsibility for foreknowledge of the relevant statutes and appreciation for the responsibility involved. As suggested by others, that's an offensive concept to some, to demand that training be required, let alone that presumption of being a threat exist in advance of any such thing. The mere fact there's a criminal code, a "reasonable man" standard and my conscience should be sufficient for me, as an average upstanding citizen, to be able to walk around my world without you demanding I be deemed a threat and possible criminal simply because I don't measure up to your preconceived notions of knowledge of statutes or these "higher" levels of responsibility.

Be worried sure. You should be. We all should be, a bit, I suppose. Today, you might well meet someone on the street who mysteriously flies off the cuff when ostensibly attacked. Be concerned about someone folks having no clue, sure, about folks not appreciating the responsibility. Great.

But, as you're doing that, please also be cognizant of the simple fact that no upstanding person begins the day as a threat, let alone a criminal. The mere fact someone puts on a defensive tool in the morning also doesn't rise to the level of threat, or crime. That someone hasn't read through all the statutes to the degree a lawyer would isn't threatening. Nor is failing to have been trained for a lifetime on judicous tactics of defense. No upstanding citizen is an actual threat until ACTUAL ACTION endangers another.

In point of fact, your fears of "blood in the streets" simply aren't fulfilled in those states where no forced training requirement exists, even where no permit/licensing process is done. Why? People generally know right from wrong, and generally know where the line is as to when force is required to stop crime against them.

It comes to this. When we're at the raggedy edge of crime, at that point when we're contemplating the need for force (even lethal force) to stop that crime, most are in general agreement as to what constitutes "reasonable" action required to survive it and prevail. Blood is not running in the streets due to this presumed, horrific lack of knowledge and sense of responsibility. It just isn't happening.

Don't like that? Debate it here, make your recommendations, become an instructor/trainer on "higher standards," if that would help. You'll need to take it on faith, I guess, that folks here will improve their view of things via the participation and exposure. Short of enacting laws demanding people be permitted, licensed, trained, re-trained and documented as experts, that's all you can realistically get.

By the way, I'm no "Lotto Playa'" when it comes to this, unlike some. I prefer a bit more certainty in this uncertain game of defending against crime. I study, I train as best I can (both with and without formal instructors), and I engage others in debate as to how to handle various situations. I'm an upstanding citizen and no threat to you, even if I don't appear to see things quite the same way. I'm not the threat, and neither are the vast numbers of other upstanding citizens, even if every one of them disagrees with you.

Self defense is every person's right as a human being.

That's right. Can't forget that, lest we end up government-stamped-and-approved lemmings led to slaughter. Can't be having that. Not ever.